Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92

Thread: Dogmatism to the side: Science to the front...

  1. #21
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben).
    Well, the CMB gives a preferred frame, is this what you mean?

    But this has nothing to do with the concept of an aether.

    You are drastically confusing the issues.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    If this thread doesn't get some direction soon.
    Which direction? String theory direction? Loop Quantum Gravity direction? Here's number of simmilar theories. How these theories can serve as a fundamental theories, if they're relying to unexaplained yet quantum mechanics and relativity theories?

    Which theory will explain the later ones? Are you really interested about physics and common point of existing theories or are you rather enjoying the censorship?

    Did you ever understood my explanation of the space-time geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    Aethers have been disproven long ago.
    While the quantum gravity theory predicts, the universe was born in the black hole?

  3. #23
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    Which direction?
    Well, presumably Reiku wanted to make this an alpha thread, but he hasn't really specified what direction the discussion is to take. The thread was immediately hijacked by you, and Reiku is aparently asleep.

    zephir---I have read exactly one of your posts before I realized that almost everything you post is not science.

    Are you really interested about physics and common point of existing theories or are you rather enjoying the censorship?
    The ``common point of existing theories''? What does your drivel have in common with anything legitimate?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    ...before I realized that almost everything you post is not science...
    What you can realize is just a dream. The science is only, what you can prove. I can't see no evidence, some proof the less - just claims, claims, claims, parroted from textbooks. How the luminiferous Aether concept was refuted by you? By assumption, the Universe is formed by black hole?

    This is a confirmation of it, instead... Such hypothesis says not only, the Aether is physically relevant, but it's a very dense stuff, composed of particles, too. Because every black hole is very dense particle stuff as well. This is a trivial logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    Well, the CMB gives a preferred frame, is this what you mean? But this has nothing to do with the concept of an aether.
    If it doesn't, how do you want to refute the Aether concept, after then?
    Last edited by zephir; 12-14-07 at 08:07 PM.

  5. #25
    Well, lets continue. I've explained, why every information inside of our Universe is mediated by energy spreading, which can be always considered inertial - at least conceptually (until the exact nature of the matter will not be known). The crucial question is by now: how the structure of such matter should appear, to enable us to see as giant Universe, as possible?

    For example, if the matter, which is serving for information spreading will be composed of many particles, the energy will spread through it in longitudinal waves. This is not very good, despite of the density of matter used, because such spreading is quite dispersive. Furthermore, as we know already from Hertz's experiment, the energy through vacuum is spreading in transversal waves, which can be polarized. While the longitidinal waves cannot.

    Fortunately, the Nature gives us the easy clue during condensation of supercritical foam. During this, the spongy density fluctuations are formed temporarily from particle environment. When the condensation continues, these fluctuations will reconnect and fragmentize into larger droplets, so that the longitudinal character of energy spreading is restored.

    http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/.../supercrit.gif

    Here at least two important points in the foamy state of matter. At first, during this moment, a certain part of energy will spread via transversal waves through it (so we can detect the temporal drop of sound waves speed, for example). At second, the energy density, which will correspond the spreading of energy through bulk phase will be always lower, then the density of energy, which will spread via newly formed spongy surfaces (why?).

    If the mass/energy density of such foam will limit to infinity, the difference between energy density of bulk and surface phase will limit to the very high value too - but it will always remain finite, albeit of the quite high value. Can anybody explain by using of well known physics of Victorian era, why is it so? You can use the math of 21th century by the same way, of course...

  6. #26
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    If it doesn't, how do you want to refute the Aether concept, after then?
    Aethers have been refuted elsewhere.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    Aethers have been refuted elsewhere.
    I don't see any evidence against the Aether here, just the evidence against the absolute reference frame, which - as You correctly stated - has nothing to to with Aether concept as such. Therefore the evidence of the absence of the absolute reference frame can have nothing to do with evidence of Aether absence - just because "preferred frame... has nothing to do with the concept of an Aether" by your own words. And what the M-M experiment has found exactly was just the absence of absolute reference frame for (visible) light spreading - the absence of Aether is solely your deduction.

    Do you know some example of classical physics, where the absence of absolute reference frame for energy wave spreading is directly connected to some material environement? Do you know as least some example of energy spreading with no absolute reference frame, with exception of the light spreading in vacuum?

    If not, then sorry - you're not physicist, just a mathematician (maybe). You can make a carrier in biology or botanics with the same relevancy.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-14-07 at 08:58 PM.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by 2inquisitive View Post
    Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben). Here is a link to their homepage and some onfo.
    http://aether.lbl.gov/
    Nice site!

    But I'm confused. I couldn't find any reference to "aether" on the site itself.

    And it says nothing about detecting our motion through the universe relative to the CMB. I think their prize was for the COBE and WMAP discoveries of the general small scale anisotropies found.

    However:

    I did find Smoots paper describing the apparent discovery of a general dipole anisotropy indicating a slightly "warmer" CMB in the general direction of the constellation of Leo. Is this what we're talking about?

  9. #29
    Hey! That's funny! I came in here to reply in the physics sub, and left from the pseudo sub. I think that's proof of a sciforums black hole / white hole thingamabob!

  10. #30
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    I couldn't find any reference to "aether" on the site itself.
    Not will you. The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.
    Come on.... How can you know about it? How can you PROVE this? I can say exactly the opposite with the same relevancy.

    "The CMB has something to do with the Aether".

    Do you see? It's as easy as it is. But I'm not interested about ad-hoc claims here, just about evidence and proofs.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    Not will you. The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.
    I believe that. But this seems to be an official site. Or am I deluded? Why is it called aether.lbl.gov ???

  13. #33
    Ben,

    Here's a pdf of a paper. Search on the word "aether" and see what you think of this. Can you interpret what this means? For a poor, lowly engineer?

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ot_lecture.pdf

    I suspect that it has nothing to do with what is popularly thought of as the "ether" that MM of course failed to find, and more to do with a convenient reference.

    What do you think?

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal View Post
    Search on the word "aether" and see what you think of this. Can you interpret what this means? For a poor, lowly engineer?
    My private experience is, the top scientists have usually no problem with the Aether concept. The Lorentz, Schrodinger, Dirac, or even Einstein in his later times were all less or more convinced aetherists. The problem with Aether is comming from 2nd party mainstream science proponents, which don't understand their subject so well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan
    ...
    In general, the question, whether some Nobelist is using the "Aether" word or not should be completelly irrelevant. Everyone should be convinced about its truth himself, not just because some Smoot or Zephir says so. If you have no such reasoning prepared, it's better not to talk about Aether at all, simply because you're not qualified to discuss such subject.

    The question by now is: "how the drift of Aether reference frame can be distinguished from the drift of GR reference frame, caused by Universe expansion?"? We should realize, the CMB drift was predicted by many years before by Gamow and others at the end of 40's of the last century just by using of Universe expansion model, i.e. without using of the Aether concept at all.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-14-07 at 09:37 PM.

  15. #35
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    If you have no such reasoning prepared, it's better not to talk about Aether at all, simply because you're not qualified to discuss such subject at all.
    I already explained why the aether doesn't make sense. So you can either tell me why those reasons are no good, or you can admit that you don't know.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    .. So you can either tell me why those reasons are no good, or you can admit that you don't know...
    Which reasons do you mean? I can't see any reasons of yours here.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    .. I already explained why the aether doesn't make sense...
    And so? I already explained, why the aether does make sense. With such vague way of discussion has no sense to continue with the discussion at all. Here are many others, who are having better arguments prepared - so why I should consider just the ad-hoced claims of yours?
    Last edited by zephir; 12-14-07 at 09:43 PM.

  17. #37
    The Devil is in the details
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    A rather ill-informed potshot at string theory, and completely tangential to the subject at hand. I can wipe the floor with you twice, if you'd like.
    Uh, what is the subject at hand, Ben? I like detailed answers, please. And string theory, a theory with 'strings' too small to be detected, curled-up hidden 'dimensions' that can not be detected, yet serve as a catch-all trashcan for the mathematics that don't work out correctly, and makes no predictions by which the theory could be confirmed or rejected. Oh, and wipe away, I am a big boy.
    So if there is an aether, it has to have exactly the same reference frame as earth? Correct?
    No more so than the Dirac sea or Dark Energy have to have exactly the same reference frame as the Earth. Can we detect our motion through the Dirac sea with a basement experiment conducted on the surface of the Earth?
    M&M showed exactly what I said, if there is an aether it has to have no reference frame, or (as you pointed out the MUCH less likely probability) that it has to have exactly the same reference frame as an observer on the surface of the earth.
    Since you seem to be totally ignorant of the new aether theories, search for "The New Aether Drift Experiment" and see if you can connect the dots. You are aware that relativity theory denies the existence of any preferred frame of reference in which physics can be described more easily and more accurately, aren't you? But, no matter, modern aether theory is alive and well, can make predictions such as an ability to determine the pecular velocity of our solar system through the universe, which was determined to be 370 km/s. Yet you claim all aether theories have been 'disproven' and belong in pseudoscience.

  18. #38
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    Uh, what is the subject at hand, Ben? I like detailed answers, please. And string theory, a theory with 'strings' too small to be detected, curled-up hidden 'dimensions' that can not be detected, yet serve as a catch-all trashcan for the mathematics that don't work out correctly, and makes no predictions by which the theory could be confirmed or rejected. Oh, and wipe away, I am a big boy.
    Tempting... But since there is no actual content in this, I don't really feel the need to respond to it, other than to point out that your objections to string theory occupy the same moral ground as the intelligent design/young earth creationist/911 was engineered by Bush/global warming isn't happening/Kerry won the election/the universe is actually on the back of a giant turtle crowd.

    No more so than the Dirac sea or Dark Energy have to have exactly the same reference frame as the Earth. Can we detect our motion through the Dirac sea with a basement experiment conducted on the surface of the Earth?
    Maybe you and Reiku should get together for tea and crumpets. One, there is no Dirac sea. This much is clear because matter is made out of more than electrons and positrons. Anyone who has learned anything about physics since 1950 would know this. Two, dark energy's effects on Earth are too small to be measured, so even if there was some idea of a preferred frame for the dark energy, you could never measure it in a terrestrial experiment.

    Yet you claim all aether theories have been 'disproven' and belong in pseudoscience.
    Yes, you are right. Your well-reasoned and highly informed response has convinced me to change my mind, and reinstate this thread into the realm of legitimate science. I see the tremendous mistake I have made, and appologize profoundly to you and zephir for even thinking that the study of aether was not worthwhile or scientific.

  19. #39
    excellent
    once that is done, take a hike please

  20. #40
    The Devil is in the details
    Posts
    3,181
    BenTheMan,
    Tempting... But since there is no actual content in this, I don't really feel the need to respond to it, other than to point out that your objections to string theory occupy the same moral ground as the intelligent design/young earth creationist/911 was engineered by Bush/global warming isn't happening/Kerry won the election/the universe is actually on the back of a giant turtle crowd.
    I think you have it backwards, Ben. I see no evidence to support string theory. You 'believe' in string theory with no evidence to support the theory and with no predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. You are closer to occupying the same moral ground as the intelligent designers, etc.
    Maybe you and Reiku should get together for tea and crumpets.
    You must be residing in a fantasy land. I reject any theory that does not display solid logic and have good experimental backing. Why do you think I am skeptical of string theories? Like Reiku, you seem to embrace speculation that lacks these qualities, just a different speculation than Reiku's.
    One, there is no Dirac sea. This much is clear because matter is made out of more than electrons and positrons. Anyone who has learned anything about physics since 1950 would know this.
    So now you are stating that pair production in the vacuum is pseudoscience. How about Hawking-Unruh radiation? You do realize that most pairs are electron/positron pairs? Why do you believe that all matter is theorized to come into existence through pair production?
    Two, dark energy's effects on Earth are too small to be measured, so even if there was some idea of a preferred frame for the dark energy, you could never measure it in a terrestrial experiment.
    Yes, exactly. The modern aether is not baryonic matter nor the old luminiferous ether. It is responsible for the 'Dark' properties of spacetime we can observe and measure and also pair production in vacuum. Exactly what it is is still unkown at this time, but we can detect its effects. Aether theories are very prominent in advanced cosmology, not a pseudoscience.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By BenTheMan in forum Formal debates
    Last Post: 11-30-07, 01:53 PM
    Replies: 18
  2. By Mickmeister in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-24-07, 02:14 PM
    Replies: 78
  3. By coberst in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 07-13-07, 02:12 AM
    Replies: 54
  4. By kwhilborn in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 05-12-07, 10:49 PM
    Replies: 0
  5. By Randy53215 in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 01-19-07, 05:58 PM
    Replies: 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •